Cyclist killed this morning in Tucson
As usual, it’s a hit-from-behind accident. There is not much information available yet. The young driver fled the scene but was caught. Apparently the driver swerved into the bike lane and hit the cyclist.
–Erik Ryberg
May 29th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I was telling my friend about this article and she said, “Well, of course, they are going to arrest the person who did this, right?”. Sigh. I told her that I didn’t know. (Not that I think arresting is the answer, but it would be nice to think that people on bicycles counted for something).
May 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Buttercup, I had the exact same conversation with my colleagues this morning. It’s heartbreaking to think that nothing may come of this. If I’m correct, the women who killed Allen Johnson (the off-duty officer) still hasn’t been charged. If TPD can’t even get it together for one of their own it doesn’t look good for the rest of us. It’s deplorable really.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I’ve only been a cyclist for the last year, but it has changed my life in countless ways. I’ve gone from morbidly obese to normal weight. I ride on Tucson streets at least 100 miles a week and have stopped using my car to get around.
That being said, before this year, I had no idea how bad it really was on the streets and how bad the enforcement is.
Is it time to start organizing some serious protests? I know things like the Ride of Silence occur now and again, but perhaps some louder protests of TPD, City Council and Pima County Supes are in order.
May 29th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
It’s universal. My kid has been hit twice in Austin, Texas and APD did not write citations. This man is my age and I live across the street from the park where he was riding. He could have been my neighbor.
I’m cycle for fun and exercise only, but I’m ready to join forces with Tucson riders to bring drive it home!
START SEEING BICYCLES!!!!
May 29th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I would attend a protest at a Pima County Supervisors meeting or even a City Council meeting.
City council meets every Tuesday afternoon, and there is a call to the audience. If an articulate bicyclist could speak before the City Council on the dangers and the legal inequities that seem to be occurring regarding bicycle fatalities in this town, I would be happy to stand up in the background with a sign. If we had several people willing to do so, that would be even better.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
I’ve been following advocacy groups in Austin and it seems like the most attention they have gotten is when they the police chief is involved. I’ve brought people together and gotten things done before. I think I would start with Chief Villasenor’s office. He’s brand new and it seems like he might commit to a forum for some good press. Just an idea.
Do y’all know who puts up ghost bikes? I’d be willing to donate to the cause.
May 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
In the previous article here. Scott suggests bringing it up to the new police chief.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Based on available media reports, it looks like the motorist made an abrupt and sharp lane change to pass another motor vehicle. In other words, he was weaving; an all too common practice in infrastructure-starved Tucson.
Infrastructure-starved doesn’t get him off the hook, nor should it.
http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/aggressivedriving_laws.html
May 29th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
The victim was hit from behind by a 2800 pound car moving at high speed and they were discussing helmet wearing by the victim in the article. How about we get some intelligence in the media?
And what about the driver’s speed in relation to the speed limit?
May 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Surely the driver should have to prove fitness to drive before being allowed on the road again.
May 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
So sad round and round we go. Where is the leadership? I think you might be the first city to loose gold status.
Clearly this blog has overwhelming evidence on that.
My condolences to the family.
May 29th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Erik says, “As usual, it’s a hit-from-behind accident.” Of course – if bicycles travel at 20 mph and automobiles travel at 40 mph, it MUST be a hit-from-behind accident. Unless one of the vehicles is traveling the wrong direction in an oncoming lane.
May 30th, 2009 at 1:23 am
I would be willing to speak at the City Counsel meeting as the widow of a cyclist killed in Tucson. Who wants to go with me?
May 30th, 2009 at 10:15 am
I’m afraid everybody poo poos my suggestion becsuse it would cost “too much money”. But the bottom line is, the ONLY way to make Tucson biker friendly is by installing dedicated north/south and east/west arterials where bikers don’t have to compete with cars at all.
Yes, it would require overpasses and underpasses and limitting some streets to no turns, bur it’s the only thing that will ever make biking safe in this city and should be prioritized. Until then, the slaughter will continue. Bikers will never be able to compete with cars. The car always “wins”.
How much money are our friends’ and relatives’ lives worth? What’s the value of the life of a man who lived frugally, rode his bike everywhere, and taught hundreds of little boys, including my own, how to play soccer? We need to put a way higher price tag on Drake Okusako’s and Kevin Robinson’s lives and build some decent roadways for peoople like them to ride on. It’s so very sad.
My youngest daughter, an obese sports nut, is just dying to be allowed to ride her bike downtown to school. She’d probably see the same great health benefits as Mr. McKisson, from the previous post. But in good conscience, I can’t allow it. Just too dangerous. I live mid-town. Just 3 blocks from the scene of yesterday’s murder. And yes, the level of negligence on the part of the kid that hit him does constitute “murder”. I heard he was doing 70 some miles an hour! I would be glad to give up my car completely if there were safe bikeways. Never gonna happen though. Safe bikeways are nobody’s priority.
May 30th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Yes, I’m sure many of us would be glad to join you, Mrs. Nystrom.
May 30th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
#14: Safe bikeways are a priority for many in Tucson. Bike Boulevards, a la 3rd Street, have a bright future for Tucson. A network of them is being devised by transportation planners for the City, for the Pima Association of Governments and by the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The RTA just funded a new bike boulevard in town along 4th Avenue/Fontana Avenue from University to Prince Road. Public open houses for the bike boulevard will occur later this year, with construction beginning early next year. The BAC could use help with bike boulevard planning. Consider coming to their meetings and participating with one of their subcommittees.
http://www.dot.pima.gov/tpcbac/Meetings.html
May 30th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Thivener’s beloved 3rd Street (esp. Sam Hughes segment) is best suited for mountain bikes and beater bikes, such is the condition of his pavement.
May 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Tom Thivener, what do you mean when you say “The BAC could use help with bike boulevard planning.”? As a cyclist, I plan on using the roads the city closes off to motor vehicle traffic, because these roads already exist. Are you advocating the construction of new roads with the euphemism ‘bike boulevards’? Are you friends with W.R. (Bill) Vail?
Roads can be closed off to cars at any time, and many of them are still in good enough repair for cyclists. Wait too long to make this move (the only one that makes sense seeing as how cars and bikes don’t mix) and all the roads will be ruined, the city will be too poor to repave them, and everyone will be walking or riding really slow.
hmm… or you can pave away
May 31st, 2009 at 9:58 am
I can imagine closing off Mountain Ave. (the street Kevin Robinson got right hooked by the bus on while going to school), and 5th street. Just by closing 5th street alone, we would give safe bike access from the east to downtown for 50,000 U.of A. students and employees, 3,500 Tucson High Students, not to speak of the students from Roskruge and the other middle school across from the U.ofA. and all of Rincon High school. That’s not even considering all the neighborhood elementary schools that line that corridor.
Let’s get outside the box of bikeways as afterthoughts that should be fit around existing car culture. It is time to take away from what has been dedicated to the car and give to those who live more naturally and healthfully with their environment, as Coach Oak exemplified so well in his own daily life. – Stephanie
June 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
[...] This has caused an understandable stir in the Tucson bicyling community. [...]
June 2nd, 2009 at 10:21 am
As someone who does so daily, I know that it’s possible to get almost anywhere in this town on all but deserted residential streets – as long as you’re going predominantly east-west. (And really RedStar? You get a nice clear east-west bike route through the middle of town that’s nearly car-free for its full length and you’re whining about six blocks of cracked pavement? No wonder we don’t get taken seriously.) North-south routes could use some work, but honestly even that’s not so bad if you’re willing to plan and go a little out of your way – get a bike map, explore some, and mark your favorites. (Although I admit, I like the idea of treating Mountain and perhaps a few others the same as 3rd St. through Sam Hughes is now – not necessarily closing it off to car traffic altogether, but prohibiting car entry from the main cross-streets. That makes a huge safety difference without negative impact for the residents living along those streets.) The biggest infrastructure problem in this town occurs as you get further from city center, where the only routes between separated neighborhoods and developments are typically high speed no-shoulder thourofares. Separate lanes are really only necessary – and should be seriously considered – in these areas, and funding for safe non-motorized access could be required from the developers building these isolated communities.
But the 600lb gorilla standing in the way of bicycle-friendly status is *not* infrastructure problems or lack of promotion or other city programs – its local law enforcement’s abject refusal to provide equal protection under the law to an entire class of citizens. Drivers in this town don’t pay any heed to bicyclists because they don’t have to – as long as you’re not drunk you can mow down cyclists with impunity in this town and fear no consequences. This must change! We need the statistics that prove anti-cyclist bias, and we need to start making noise at city council and county sup meetings – particularly the ones in which law enforcement budgets are being discussed. We need the victims of this bias to stand up and ask “why no justice for us?” Teresa, just let us know when and *I’ll* be there, we all should!
June 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I really don’t want any streets closed off
to bikes, so I’m not an advocate of closing
any streets to cars. Won’t happen anyway.
Pavement condition is inconsistant on a lot
of routes and hopefully on future bike
boulevards that can be addressed…there
would be no point in having them if it wasn’t.
It’s not parity when a cyclist has to devise some
zig-zag, circuitous route to get somewhere.
Surface conditions can cause injury when a
rider’s attention is drawn away. It should be
part of the platinum condition.
Scott hits a crucial point about consequences
in these bike fatalities. Had the 19-year-old
not left the scene, we have no reason to believe
any charges would have been filed. It would be
just like the officer’s death on Spanish Trail.
Driving straight ahead on a striped shoulder
(remember it is not a bike lane) is not a moving
violation. We had some good legislators come up
with the three-foot law, but it needs to be
elevated to a moving violation so that charges
can be made from it.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
“but it needs to be elevated to a moving violation so that charges can be made from it.”
coghauler — that’s not the crux of the problem. There is no specific list of what can elicit a homicide charge. It’s a homicide if the prosecutor says it is. If you look here:
http://azbikelaw.org/carlaw/homicide.html
particularly– see what it says about negligent homicide and manslaughter in the chart about the 4 types of homicide.
If 28-735 was part of 28-672; it would be a baby step in the right direction, since the criminal penalties for 28-672 are negligible, it is a class 3 misdemeanor. That is the same class as “LITTERING on the highway” (see 28-7056) for cryin out loud
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
Coghauler, there are roads in Tucson that bikes cannot travel on, the two main reasons being either the road is too unsafe or there is a statute prohibiting pedestrians and cyclists from accessing them (with a few of the ‘hardcore’ riders willing to make exceptions). I see roads like 22nd, grant, Aviation highway, and 5th-6th street as some good examples of roads that are too unsafe for cyclists, and I remember seeing signs posted at the on-ramp to I-10 prohibiting cyclists and pedestrians.
The logic you used to figure out that you would have to (I guess) consent to roads being closed off to bikes, if you agreed that roads should be closed off to cars, does not make any sense.
Oh, and I hope you have figured out that bikes cause a lot less damage to pavement then motor vehicles do. There are a lot of roads in great shape that can be turned into designated bike-ways, and the city would save money doing this instead of making more roads. Tucson will not be able to clean up after cars for much longer (hopefully) because eventually it wont have enough money to buy asphalt. Good people have to do the right thing (in the mean time) and stop participating in Tucson’s economy until either Tucson has it’s own monetary system that is safe for people to use, or every last dollar has been spent and the idiotic representatives can’t buy any more harm and can go on ignoring everyone else as long as they like.
Wouldn’t a lawyer advise mitigating loss if, in the case, eliminating loss altogether is not an option?
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
OK…so it seems cars have carte blanche
to kill people guaranteed by the constitution.
Contrasting and comparing the three deaths
most recently:
the 19-year-old who left the scene,
the cop on the bike on Spanish Trail &
the motorcycle cop killed by a left turn
violation.
The most serious infraction we know of so
far is leaving the scene….yes?
The deaths are incidental.
The list of violations seems pretty
irrelevant, then, even though the
school bus and crossing stuff is in
there.
So how does a list of violations get
created that reflects and appropriately
criminalizes deaths in situations of
high vulnerability?
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Tony-
I was commenting from the point that
if city government started closing streets
to cars, they would feel pressure from
citizens and feel vindicated in designating
some streets off limits to bikes. It’s
really best not to go there.
“roads like 22nd, grant, Aviation highway, and 5th-6th street as some good examples of roads that are too unsafe for cyclists”….it’s a subjective view.
I won’t go on 5th-6th and I think Aviation is
prohibited by sign but it has the path.
Reasonable alternatives exist for a lot of
the higher risk routes.
I really doubt all streets will be made “safe”
to the standards of the most timid riders.
It could be that the car has skewed our
cultulral view of risk.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
5th/6th can and should be spliced, from Country Club (or perhaps the empty parking lot known as El Con Mall) to around 4th Ave. That route is right out of Urban Planning 101 and if Zoll and Thivener can’t get it done, then perhaps it is best if they toil away at their meaningless little bike lanes, frame and bone wrecking bike routes, and cute asphalt paths along the dried up rivers.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Coghauler, I guess I didn’t make the assumptions you made. Standards and measures of safety cannot be made subjectively.